Boyd v. United States: US Supreme Court Rules That Individuals (That Have Standing) Can Sue Based On Federalism/Tenth Amendment Violations

From the Supreme Court ruling today in Boyd v. United States, where they actually got one right:

This case presents the question whether a person indicted for violating a federal statute has standing to challenge its validity on grounds that, by enacting it, Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution, thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of the States... The Court of Appeals held that because a State was not a party to the federal criminal proceeding, petitioner had no standing to challenge the statute as an infringement upon the powers reserved to the States. Having concluded that petitioner does have standing to challenge the federal statute on these grounds, this Court now reverses that determination...

The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived... The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States. The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that States function as political entities in their own right. But that is not its exclusive sphere of operation. Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity... Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake... Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions... The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate... The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment , both are expressed by it. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government, and action that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States. The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment , both are expressed by it. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government, and action that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States. The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant injury to persons in individual cases... [W]here the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy, she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of our Government.

I am actually sort of surprised that this is a new holding, it seems bizarre to me that the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals could have ruled differently. The powers not delegated to the Federal government nor prohibited to the States "are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE." It seems fairly odd to reason that the people, facing injury from federal laws or convictions, should not be able to challenge based on the lack of authority of the federal government to make that law to begin with.

Well, glad they settled that, and that the Supreme Court got one right. Give credit where credit is due, while remembering that even a broken clock is right twice a day Tweet